[T]here are powerful domestic political forces in the U.S. which enforce Israel-centric orthodoxies and make it politically impossible to question America's blind loyalty to Israel. . . . In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can't, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America's blind support for Israel should be re-examined.

Of course there are such "powerful domestic political forces" (as for Glenn's characterization of such policy as "blind loyalty," to me that is beside the point for this discussion.) And there is such a "powerful domestic political force" on Cuba policy. And agricultural policy. And so on. That is politics. These are "political forces" after all. That is the way it works. And that is not a bad thing. More . . .

Consider what Glenn himself is trying to do with his Accountability Now project. Is he not trying to force a certain orthodoxy on policy? Is he not trying to change the fact that "[i]n the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions[?]" If not, then I withdraw my endorsement of it. It seems to me what what Glenn is really complaining about is the different way these two types of projects are treated by the Media. One is accepted and one is treated as an awful threat.

I never attack people for the fact that they try to dictate policy (be they pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-free trade or anti-free trade, pro-Cuba embargo or anti-Cuba embargo and so on.) I join with the ones I agree with and criticize the views of those I disagree with.

What I find fault with is the Media's blessing of some "special interests" while criticizing others. What makes some ok and some awful? Is it mere disagreement or something more. I think Glenn's point is that there is something more going on - that there is an ingrained acceptance of some "special interests" while others are treated as bad.

Glenn may well be right to question the wisdom of AIPAC on Freeman and on US Israel policy generally. But it always bothers me when a critique on the substance slips into mindless attacks on the "influence" of "special interests" (to be clear, Glenn did not do that.) Everyone who cares and is involved is a "special interest" - the good ones have tremendous influence. I assume they all want to be as powerful as AIPAC. And that we will cheer if "special interests" we agree with become as powerful as AIPAC.

and not another special interest group. Lobbyist have their place but never at the expense of the American people who are the true voters who chose their representative and their senators. Congress owes their allegiance to them first and then maybe secondly to a lobbyist group. Something is wrong when a congressman or senators pays more attention to a special interest group than they do their own constituents who are the primary people who got them in to their positions. Something is wrong when more is done to satisfy the needs of a special interest group before the needs of the constituents. IMO that is exactly what is happening today. That is why I say that is to much power.

I take an interest group from the left, I take an interest group from the right, and I mix them together. This was a broadly advertised perk of the Obama approach (and on the left, it was seen as a necessary evil)...and lefties believed that they would win, because Obama was a secret progressive. [Again, Rick Warren - some groups opposed him, but many "left" bloggers were far too willing to justify his presence there].

I think the more fundamental view that you seem to take - there are always special interest groups, they are always in conflict, win/lose - is much more solid.

during good 'ol campaign season liberal "special interests" were sometimes sacrificed on the premise that Obama was going to change the way special interest politics worked (Unity Pony). Has that happened? No...hopefully a lesson will be learned from this. I have to admit, I was slightly duped myself.

...is that it puts the interests of a foreign country ahead of the U.S.'s interests, and demands fealty to that foreign government over fealty to the U.S. I'm surprised more people aren't troubled by this. Can we imagine any politician running for office who felt compelled to constantly reiterate his/her support for, say, China? Russia? France? Even Great Britain doesnt' get the level of obeisance that Israel does.

And let's not forget that a leading AIPAC member is currently under indictment for treason (well, that's what it is, right?).

The problem with AIPAC is that its interests are not tied to the United States of America but to Israel, and Israel only. By forcing the US to tie its fate to Israels, they have played a role in making us less safe, and making our children less safe. They're a destructive lobby, period.

Many people (including me, and probably a majority of US citizens) believe that having a strong, thriving Israel is vital to the interests of the United States. Thus I believe that AIPAC's lobbying is making us more safe, not less safe. You are confusing your own minority opinion with reality.

Anyway, AIPAC doesn't force anyone to do anything, so you are not choosing your words carefully. In contrast, when newspapers published cartoons that were perceived as disrespectful to a certain religious figure, a different lobby (not AIPAC, for sure) engaged in riots and death threats until some of the newspapers backed down. Why aren't you criticizing that lobby, which really did engage in force and threats of force against its opponents?

You equate a strong and safe Israel with the success of AIPAC. Many would argue that AIPACs actions have hurt Israel, not helped. If you want to support Israel look towards J Street and other groups that actually want peace for Israel and its neighbors. Many people dont realize that the biggest critics of AIPAC aren't arabs but jews who are staunch supporters of Israel and want peace. This is the biggest problem in this country, many people naively think the Israel lobby must be good for Israel since, you know, its the ISRAEL lobby.

You shouldn't confuse your opinion with reality, and you shouldn't call my opinion a mistake without adducing evidence

I've thought long and hard about my stance on this issue, and I disagree with you. I don't call your opinion a mistake because I assume you've also thought about it. Honest people can agree to disagree.

AIPAC has, for all intents and purposes, run US Foreign policy towards Israel/Middle East and what do we have to show for it?? No peace process, growing settlements, more radicalized palestinians, more radicalized Israelis, lower world opinion of Israel and the prospect of the 2 state solution no longer being an option due to annexed land. I think its pretty clear that the approach has to change, but maybe you see it as a resounding success.

Given the appeals court ruling, it will be interesting to see if the Obama Justice Dept. goes ahead with the trial, scheduled for late April.

No...it's not 'treason.' But if Rosen and Weissman were found guilty of anything substantial, AIPAC would worry that it could possibly be forced to file as lobbyists of a foreign power. THAT would seriously hamper their power and status, particularly in elections.

Indicting Rosen was a scare for them...but it was 'handled' and here we are 4 years later with Rosen free to attack Obama's appointee...who withdrew today.

Doesn't bode well for the Obama administration's independence of AIPAC, I'd say.

As a jew I am really bothered that the right wing Israeli interests represented by AIPAC wind up being perceived as the voice of all jews. I see a resurgence of anti-semitism as a direct result of AIPAC and the Israeli right wing.

The biggest problem is that valid criticism many jews agree with regarding human rights abuses by right wing Israelis, winds up getting contaminated and fueled by racist stereotypes.

I imagine that if someone like Farahakan were the leader of an all black country in the mid east who we were unflinchingly supporting largely because a powerful lobby kept all criticism at bay, many african americans would feel as I do about AIPAC.

very well informed about geopolitics. Many of the tinpot dictators in Africa are MUCH worse than Farakhan. The US does its best to provide humanitarian support to Africa anyway (greatly stepped up under Bush) because it's the right thing to do. And no one even notices, since they're not obsessed with Africa the way they're obsessed with Israel.

Will be in the form of a civil suit against AIPAC by none other than Steve Rosen who is suing them for defamation (firing him).

Oddly enough once he filed the suit AIPAC offered to pay for his criminal trial where he and Weissman are charged with violation of the 1917 espionage act.

The filing also alleges that "through their publication of the falsehoods about Mr. Rosen, defendant achieved an increase of millions of dollars in revenue for AIPAC, whereas had they told the truth, AIPAC might well have suffered a significant decrease in fund-raising, as well as an increase in legal costs."

Sounds like this case will be interesting to follow. My bet is that both the criminal case and civil suit will disappear.

After the FBI raid, AIPAC stood by the two employees, insisting they had done nothing wrong. Rosen says he even received a performance bonus. Seven months later, in March 2005, Rosen and Weissman were fired; they were indicted in August of that year.

Rosen's suit alleges that AIPAC gave in to government pressure to fire the two staffers, casting Paul McNulty, the lead prosecutor in the case, as making threats that would not be out of place in a legal drama.

"We could make real progress and get AIPAC out from under all of us," the filing quotes McNulty as saying.

The public has much to gain if the $21 mil law suit proceeds:

Should it come to trial, the civil case promises revelations of how AIPAC works its sensitive relations with the executive branch and allegedly capitulated to government pressure to fire Rosen and Keith Weissman, its then-Iran analyst.

of AIPAC (which I do not support) which strikes some people as anti-Semitic, or at least of questionable moral logic. Influencing policy is what the blogosphere is all about. It follows that if you believe that's a legitimate activity, the same activity conducted by others, even people one disagrees with, is also a legitimate activity.

AIPAC is wrong not because it attempts to spread its ideas, or because it is successful in spreading its ideas but rather because the ideas are often wrong.

Unfortunately, there is sometimes an anti-success bias on the left . Google is good as long as it is small, influence is legitimate as long as it fails. The best example of this was a conversation I heard about my favorite Brooklyn coffee shop after they opened a second store -- "Oh, I don't go there any more. It's a chain."

I tend to have a less sunny view than BTD of attaining policy nirvana through competition between single-issue policy lobbyists and so I do wish AIPAC, the AARP, the AAA, and the rest of the lobbyist alphabet had less influence. But if one is going to curry influence themselves, it's unseemly to criticize others for doing the same.

I find AIPAC gets relatively little grief when you consider its power.

You have to remember, I still read Daily Kos.

And, in any event, it's this particular post by Greenwald that we're discussing. And (here I'm only agreeing with you, I think) he does commit the fallacy of singling out AIPAC for doing the same thing he himself wants to do.

In a free society individuals and groups will always be able to lobby the government, in a democratic society voting blocks will sometimes have disproportionate power, in a capitalist society money will always talk.

If one wants to read criticism of Israel, all one has to do is read the English version of the main Israeli newspapers, in particular Haaretz. It's our duty as citizens of the world to express our opinions and if they criticize someone, so what?

If you have selective criticism that might be a problem.

Criticizing Israel is fine and AIPAC stupidly tries to block it, we should just ignore it. AIPAC represents, didn't always, the right wing in Israel; the majority in Israel wants the Obama supported two state solution.

European see the Palestinian as the almost only aggrieved body in the world. This may not be anti-semitism, but it does involve severe discrimination.

in any democracy, is not necessarily stable. Israel has a free press and a thriving adversarial culture. As you point out, they don't hesitate to criticize their own government.

Overall, historically Israel could be considered a center-left country, with strong socialist roots (think of the Kibbutz movement, especially as originally designed). When Israelis feel threatened, as they do now, public opinion is liable to move rightward, as it has. But these are the same liberal people, subject to what feels to them like life-threatening dangers.

They seem to have become such a powerful lobby that, on average, you'll find less criticism of the Israeli government amongst lawmakers, and the press, than in Israel itself.

That's strange and wrong, and it has made AIPAC an actual obstacle on any possible road to peace. When lawmakers can't use the word "evenhanded" without being piled on, or when a passionate plea for peace by the Jordanian king in a speech gets piled on because it did not explicitly criticize Palestinian violence (it did not criticize Israeli violence either), then something's very wrong. Open, honest discussion on the subject of Israel is not possible in US politics, which also makes it very hard for the US to be an honest broker in the peace process. And the US is the only one who can do it.

Perhaps it is unfair to blame all that on AIPAC, but they do seem to play a big role in this.

I hope J Street will become more important, they seem to be a common sense organization, not a kneejerk one.

Of course Israelis criticize their government more than American politicians do. As citizens of a democratic state, it is the job of Israelis to criticize their government, or even to vote it out when they considers it necessary, as happened recently. This is true in every democracy with a free press.

But for us here in democratic America, with a full understanding of the conflict and the issues involved, it would be strange if we focused criticisms on Israel and didn't have at least as much criticism for its non-democratic Arab neighbors who stone homosexuals or engage in international terrorism and in other opprobrious behavior.

People that engage in fair criticism of Israel in the context of the problems of the Middle East do fine in our political culture - look at Hillary's recent critical statements. It is only those that disproportionately attack Israel to the exclusion of every other country that have trouble, as Chas Freeman recently learned.

of all Palestinians, just like Avigdor Lieberman is not representative of all Israelis. Lets not act like the unevenness began with Hamas. It was there before, it will be there after. As we speak right now Israel is on the verge of doubling settlement expansion since 2001 and virtually making a 2 state solution impossible, yet all we here is how the rockets should stop if peace is to be achieved. Anyone with a vague familiarity of the issue knows that the settlements are 100X the threat to peace that the rockets are, yet they aren't mentioned in the resolution of even in the rhetoric.

No one is advocating favoring the arabs or being unfair to Israel, thats ludicrous and a straw man if I ever saw one. If the US wants to be taken seriously as an honest broker then it needs to act like one. You do not give unconditional support to one side and then claim to be the seeker of a 2 state solution.

More proof of what I was saying. People immediately get hyperbolic and bent out of shape.

"evenhanded" means with equal concern for both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people, who both deserve peace on reasonable terms.

Comments like yours are exactly what I mean. Whenever you say something about Israel, you have to add tons of qualifiers. If you have any criticism, you're supposed to prefix that with "I support Israel, its right to exist and its right to defend itself, and the Palestinian terrorist actions are a crime, however.." <insert mild criticism here>. Of course, all the things in that prefix are obvious, but if you don't say them, you are piled on, and sometimes even risk being called an anti-semite.

a fair evaluation of the situation, whatever it is. If one side is initiating attacks against the other, as is true today, an evenhanded approach would say that the attacker has to stop immediately, not that both sides have to make equal concessions.

Evenhanded doesn't necessarily mean that both sides are equally right - this isn't kindergarten. It certainly does mean equal concern for the two peoples - I agree with you there.

The labor unions have been railroaded by big business, they have lost the majority of their policy fights over the last 30 years and this is their first real chance to make a difference in decades. How's that like the Israel lobby which basically has its way almost all the time. If anything labor is the exact opposite, US policy has undermined them going on 3 decades.

more than its share of negating labors influence, even if your hypothetical scenario were to come true. If labor were able to make the Senate vote 100-0 on the EFCA, the same way the senate votes on resolutions issuing unequivocal, one-sided support of Israel, then we'd have a fair analogy. But since we know such a reality would never even be close to existing, its pointless. Its actually pretty hard to find a comparable lobby to AIPAC, they've effectively made taking a nuanced view on Israel the third rail of us politics.

the only unions with any real clout these days are public employee unions...teachers, police/sheriffs, city/county/state employees,etc. They have almost no federal clout but some with local governments. Hence, the drop in support in congress for the card check bill.

Last I heard, union members were down from over 20% of the workforce to something like 12%. That will drop further as state and local governments layoff workers to balance their budgets.

In my state, some unions are making enemies left and right by suing the governor for denying them a raise while trying to fill an $8+Billion budget hole! My union-president husband must be turning over in his grave...so to speak...

are an interesting bunch. In my state, at least, it's one of the last routes to a family-wage w/benefits indoor job without requiring a diploma...except for janitorial/custodial services. Even the office clerks have to have a high school diploma or GED.

If you look at it as a benefit, you'd count lower heating bills (uh oh...but what about air conditioning?) and savings re eating out at restaurants. On the other hand, if you want to go somewhere, the gas bill will eat a hole in your wallet.

BTD - your point is excellent, and eloquently made. I don't see this point of view much on Progressive web sites, and it is a disappointment to me that I don't, since it is by effective lobbying, within the system, that we progressives will be able to make progress toward attaining our goals.

And squeaky, yes that is an unfortunate and troubling side effect of the AIPAC cause, and lamentably AIPAC does much to foment it by labelilng every criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic." It's a dangerous stance that will leave only true anti-Semites able to speak out.

AIPAC would worry that it could possibly be forced to file as lobbyists of a foreign power.

This is what blows me away. Why DOESN'T it have to?

Obama wouldn't even answer a direct question when Helen Thomas asked him which "other" Middle Eastern countries had nuclear weapons. We all know it's Israel but nobody is supposed to say it out loud, and we don't require Israel to submit to any of the international laws regarding nuclear weapons (or any others for that matter).

Regardless of AIPAC's goals, irrespective of anyone's beliefs about Israel, the bottom line remains that its interests and loyalties are to a foreign country and moreover to a foreign country that has been a far less loyal or reliable ally than many others and whose goals are often at odds with the goals and interests of the U.S.

Then Israeli Foreign Ministry Deputy Director General for Public Affairs Gideon Meir (and now Israel's Ambassador to Italy) told me that "AIPAC does not represent the interests of the Israeli government. This organization may mean well but these diaspora organizations -- in order to keep and retain their members -- present battles in black and white and see only two sides. I have to deal with five sides -- or seven sides -- to a problem; and sometimes AIPAC and these diaspora groups undermine our efforts."

This would argue against AIPAC registering as a foreign agent. But if memos came down the pike that Israel is giving AIPAC clear instructions, then the requirement of registration should be implemented.